{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Every ingredient of LIPSTICK A 100 is an ingredient of Hungry for My Money. Second premise: Every ingredient of CRANBERRY LIP BALM is an ingredient of LIPSTICK A 100. Therefore, being an ingredient of CRANBERRY LIP BALM is sufficient for being an ingredient of Hungry for My Money.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Everything that is an ingredient of Stella By Starlight is an ingredient of Savvy Nail Lacquer, too. Second premise: Bisphenol A (BPA) is an ingredient of Savvy Nail Lacquer. In consequence, bisphenol A (BPA) is an ingredient of Stella By Starlight.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: No ancestor of Jorge is a schoolmate of William. Second premise: Being a grandson of Harvey is sufficient for being a schoolmate of William. All this entails that no grandson of Harvey is an ancestor of Jorge.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Whoever is not a grandson of Joan is a cousin of Trevor. Second premise: There is somebody who is a half-brother of Paul and not a cousin of Trevor. From this follows: Somebody is a half-brother of Paul and not a grandson of Joan.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, being a half-sister of Cristi is necessary for being a close friend of Felicia. Now, every half-sister of Cristi is not a granddaughter of Bernice or not a niece of Malinda. We may conclude: No close friend of Felicia is a niece of Malinda or a granddaughter of Bernice.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, everyone who is a sister of Hattie is a granddaughter of Lorraine, too. Now, not every daughter of Leslie is a granddaughter of Lorraine. It follows that some daughter of Leslie is not a sister of Hattie.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, everyone who is both an uncle of Francesco and an uncle of Joel is not a great-grandfather of Earl. All this entails that everyone who is not a great-grandfather of Earl is however an uncle of Francesco and an uncle of Joel.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Every rare consumer of Sunsilk shampoo is a regular consumer of Pears soap. Every regular consumer of Pears soap is not an occasional purchaser of Shield soap or not a regular user of Frederic Fekkai shampoo. We may conclude that no rare consumer of Sunsilk shampoo is a regular user of Frederic Fekkai shampoo and, in the same time, an occasional purchaser of Shield soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, nothing is neither an ingredient of GLOW SHOT MASK nor an ingredient of Lip Color Cream. Next, nothing is neither an ingredient of GLOW SHOT MASK nor an ingredient of Chocolate Moose. Plus,whatever is not an ingredient of CHI Pliable Polish is not both an ingredient of Chocolate Moose and an ingredient of Lip Color Cream. From this follows: Being an ingredient of CHI Pliable Polish is necessary for not being an ingredient of GLOW SHOT MASK.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: To be a nephew of Danial or a brother of Johnny is necessary for being a stepbrother of Ariel. Second premise: Being a stepbrother of Ariel is necessary for being a stepbrother of Alvin. From this follows: Every stepbrother of Alvin is a brother of Johnny or a nephew of Danial.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First, coal Tar is not an ingredient of Coral Cutie Lacquer. Second, everything that is an ingredient of A-Zyme Peel is an ingredient of Coral Cutie Lacquer, too. From this follows: Coal Tar is not an ingredient of A-Zyme Peel.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, whoever is a frequent consumer of The Body Shop soap is not a rare consumer of Irish Spring soap. Moreover, whoever is a frequent consumer of The Body Shop soap is not a loyal buyer of Matrix shampoo. Finally, whoever is not an infrequent user of Ivory soap is however a rare consumer of Irish Spring soap or a loyal buyer of Matrix shampoo. From this follows: No infrequent user of Ivory soap is a frequent consumer of The Body Shop soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Whoever is not a loyal buyer of Clairol shampoo is a loyal buyer of Aveeno soap. Second premise: Whoever is not a regular user of Nioxin shampoo is not a rare consumer of Dermasil soap or not a loyal buyer of Aveeno soap. Third premise: Whoever is not a loyal buyer of Clairol shampoo is a rare consumer of Dermasil soap. Hence, nobody is neither a loyal buyer of Clairol shampoo nor a regular user of Nioxin shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, being an ingredient of Skindalous is sufficient for being an ingredient of Wax Hair Removal. Next, not being an ingredient of Aviance Night Musk is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Wax Hair Removal. All this entails that whatever is not an ingredient of Skindalous is an ingredient of Aviance Night Musk.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, some ingredient of SUBLIME ESSENCE is not an ingredient of Kush Lip Glaze. Second, every ingredient of Opulent is an ingredient of SUBLIME ESSENCE. All this entails that something is an ingredient of Kush Lip Glaze and not an ingredient of Opulent.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, being an ingredient of Awapuhi Shampoo or an ingredient of Blemish corrector is sufficient for being an ingredient of Cassis Rose Soap. Next, Benzanthracene is an ingredient of Blemish corrector. Therefore, Benzanthracene is an ingredient of Cassis Rose Soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, every regular consumer of Dove shampoo who is a frequent consumer of Shield soap is not a rare consumer of Tocca soap. So, necessarily, every rare consumer of Tocca soap is not a frequent consumer of Shield soap or not a regular consumer of Dove shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Some classmate of Susan is not a workmate of Lorraine. Everyone who is a workmate of Marjorie is a classmate of Susan, too. Therefore, not every workmate of Lorraine is a workmate of Marjorie.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, some follower of Southampton FC is not a follower of Hertha BSC Berlin. Moreover, being a critic of SønderjyskE is sufficient for being a follower of Southampton FC. We may conclude: Somebody is a follower of Hertha BSC Berlin and not a critic of SønderjyskE.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, no cousin of Rose is a stepsister of Laurie. Now, every cousin of Rose is a stepsister of Laurie or, otherwise, neither a stepsister of Laurie nor a daughter of Beverly. So, necessarily, whoever is a cousin of Rose is not a daughter of Beverly.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, everyone who is an owner of a CHI shampoo is a regular user of TRESemmé shampoo, too. We may conclude that everyone who is a regular user of TRESemmé shampoo is an owner of a CHI shampoo, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, no ingredient of Caramel Paint is an ingredient of Sparkling Embers or an ingredient of Othine Skin Bleach. Therefore, everything that is an ingredient of Sparkling Embers or an ingredient of Othine Skin Bleach is not an ingredient of Caramel Paint.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, being an ingredient of Eye Catching or not being an ingredient of Buxom Lash Mascara is sufficient for being an ingredient of Lip Glaze. Now, Methyleugenol is an ingredient of Buxom Lash Mascara. All this entails that Methyleugenol is not an ingredient of Lip Glaze.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, every cousin of Irish and every daughter of Catherine is a daughter of Doreen. Second, Robert is a daughter of Catherine. In consequence, Robert is a daughter of Doreen.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, no cousin of Shannon is a classmate of Arthur. Now, whoever is a nephew of Douglas is not a classmate of Arthur. Moreover, every nephew of Alan is neither a cousin of Shannon nor a nephew of Douglas. Therefore, no nephew of Alan is a classmate of Arthur.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, to be an occasional purchaser of Ivory soap or a loyal buyer of American Crew shampoo is necessary for being an owner of a Vaseline soap. Moreover, no regular user of Bliss soap is an occasional purchaser of Ivory soap or a loyal buyer of American Crew shampoo. Hence, being an owner of a Vaseline soap is sufficient for not being a regular user of Bliss soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, being an owner of a Dettol soap is sufficient for not being an infrequent user of Bio Ionic shampoo. Now, no owner of a Dettol soap is an owner of a Crafted soap. Moreover, someone who is not a regular user of Bath & Body Works soap is an owner of a Crafted soap or an infrequent user of Bio Ionic shampoo. We may conclude: Whoever is a regular user of Bath & Body Works soap is not an owner of a Dettol soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, somebody is an ancestor of Virgie and a sister of Lillian. Next, being a sister of Lillian is sufficient for being a great-grandmother of Lucinda. From this follows: Somebody is an ancestor of Virgie and a great-grandmother of Lucinda.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Nothing is neither an ingredient of Ultimate Brow nor an ingredient of Haut-Cout-Orange. Second premise: Nothing is neither an ingredient of OXYLIANCE FLUID nor an ingredient of Haut-Cout-Orange. Third premise: To be an ingredient of OXYLIANCE FLUID or an ingredient of Ultimate Brow is necessary for being an ingredient of Iced Latte. Hence, everything that is an ingredient of Iced Latte is an ingredient of Haut-Cout-Orange, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, every ingredient of Waterproof mascara that is an ingredient of BODY CRAYON WHITE is not an ingredient of TRICOLOUR LIPGLASS. All this entails that every ingredient of TRICOLOUR LIPGLASS is not an ingredient of BODY CRAYON WHITE or not an ingredient of Waterproof mascara.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, not being an uncle of Joshua is sufficient for not being a workmate of Darrell. Now, everyone who is a cousin of Freddy is a workmate of Darrell, too. Hence, whoever is not a cousin of Freddy is an uncle of Joshua.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, everyone who is a loyal buyer of AXE shampoo is a loyal buyer of Aussie shampoo, too. Now, not being an infrequent user of Yardley London soap is sufficient for not being a loyal buyer of Aussie shampoo. All this entails that being an infrequent user of Yardley London soap is necessary for not being a loyal buyer of AXE shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: To be an ex-supporter of UC Sampdoria or a fan of APOEL FC is necessary for being a devotee of FC Slovan Liberec. Second premise: No ex-supporter of UC Sampdoria is a devotee of FC Slovan Liberec. In consequence, being a fan of APOEL FC is necessary for being a devotee of FC Slovan Liberec.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, being a great-grandfather of Dewayne is sufficient for being a grandson of Craig. Next, every schoolmate of Darrin is not a half-brother of Manuel or not a great-grandfather of Dewayne. Plus,everyone who is a half-brother of Manuel is a grandson of Craig, too. It follows that every schoolmate of Darrin is a grandson of Craig.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Everyone who is a regular user of Aveeno shampoo is a rare consumer of American Crew shampoo, too. Not being an infrequent user of Aussie shampoo is sufficient for not being a rare consumer of American Crew shampoo. It follows that whoever is not a regular user of Aveeno shampoo is an infrequent user of Aussie shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, no supporter of Malmö FF is an opponent to OGC Nice. Next, every supporter of Malmö FF is an opponent to OGC Nice or an ex-fan of Olympique de Marseille or a fan of HJK Helsinki. We may conclude: Every supporter of Malmö FF is a fan of HJK Helsinki or an ex-fan of Olympique de Marseille.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Charlotte is not a member of Alashkert FC. It is false that Charlotte is an opponent to FK Kukësi. Every fan of Chelsea FC is a member of Alashkert FC or an opponent to FK Kukësi. In consequence, it is not the case that Charlotte is a fan of Chelsea FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, every sister of Guadalupe is neither a half-sister of Latisha nor a workmate of Penny. So, necessarily, whoever is none of this: a half-sister of Latisha or workmate of Penny, is a sister of Guadalupe.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: Every ingredient of Pure Press II is an ingredient of M&M Lip Shake Gloss or an ingredient of Serious Shine Spray. Being an ingredient of M&M Lip Shake Gloss is necessary for not being an ingredient of Pure Press II. In consequence, every ingredient of Pure Press II is an ingredient of Serious Shine Spray.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, there is somebody who is a fan of Vitória SC and not an ex-supporter of SønderjyskE. Second, being a member of Villarreal CF is sufficient for not being an ex-supporter of SønderjyskE. Hence, some fan of Vitória SC is a member of Villarreal CF.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, being a workmate of Monte is necessary for not being an ancestor of Willie. Next, being a workmate of Monte is necessary for being a son of Jody. We may conclude that being an ancestor of Willie is necessary for not being a son of Jody.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, somebody is an opponent to FC Sheriff Tiraspol and an ex-fan of FC Basel 1893. Now, everyone who is neither an ex-fan of FC Internazionale Milano nor a friend of VfL Wolfsburg is not an ex-fan of FC Basel 1893. All this entails that there exists an opponent to FC Sheriff Tiraspol who is not an ex-fan of FC Internazionale Milano or not a friend of VfL Wolfsburg.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Being an infrequent user of Nioxin shampoo is sufficient for being a rare consumer of Suave shampoo. Being a rare consumer of Suave shampoo is necessary for being a frequent consumer of Dove shampoo. Every occasional purchaser of AXE shampoo who is a loyal buyer of Pureology shampoo is a frequent consumer of Dove shampoo or an infrequent user of Nioxin shampoo. All this entails that everyone who is both an occasional purchaser of AXE shampoo and a loyal buyer of Pureology shampoo is a rare consumer of Suave shampoo, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Not being a fan of FC Viitorul is sufficient for not being a fan of Esbjerg fB. It follows that being a fan of Esbjerg fB is sufficient for being a fan of FC Viitorul.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, every loyal buyer of TRESemmé shampoo is neither an occasional purchaser of Lever soap nor a frequent consumer of Purpose soap. We may conclude that everyone who is an occasional purchaser of Lever soap or a frequent consumer of Purpose soap is not a loyal buyer of TRESemmé shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, Henry is not both: a nephew of Ricardo and a grandson of Chester. Now, every nephew of Lowell is a grandson of Chester and a nephew of Ricardo. We may conclude that it is not the case that Henry is a nephew of Lowell.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Being an expert of Feyenoord is necessary for not being an ex-fan of Yeni Malatyaspor. Therefore, whoever is an expert of Feyenoord is not an ex-fan of Yeni Malatyaspor.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, everyone who is a stepbrother of Owen is an uncle of Clyde, too. Now, some uncle of Clyde is not an uncle of Daniel. From this follows: Not every uncle of Daniel is a stepbrother of Owen.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, whoever is regular user of René Furterer shampoo is at least one of these: a regular consumer of Nexxus shampoo, a regular consumer of John Frieda shampoo or a regular consumer of Pantene shampoo. Now, being a regular user of Bath & Body Works soap is necessary for being a regular consumer of Nexxus shampoo. Moreover, being a regular user of Bath & Body Works soap is necessary for being a regular consumer of John Frieda shampoo. So, necessarily, every regular user of René Furterer shampoo is a regular consumer of Pantene shampoo or a regular user of Bath & Body Works soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, being a cousin of William is necessary for being a son of Efrain. Moreover, Harold is a cousin of William. In consequence, Harold is a son of Efrain.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Being a critic of PFC Ludogorets 1945 is necessary for not being a critic of SK Rapid Wien. Some critic of PFC Ludogorets 1945 is not both an ex-fan of GNK Dinamo Zagreb and a devotee of HNK Rijeka. So, necessarily, there is somebody who is an ex-fan of GNK Dinamo Zagreb, a devotee of HNK Rijeka, and a critic of SK Rapid Wien.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Every close friend of Michael is neither a classmate of Robert nor an uncle of Martin. We may conclude: Whoever is a classmate of Robert or an uncle of Martin is not a close friend of Michael.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: No ingredient of 04 CONCEALER PENCIL is an ingredient of Expresso Yourself and, in the same time, an ingredient of LASH PLUMPER. Every ingredient of LASH PLUMPER that is an ingredient of Expresso Yourself is an ingredient of 04 CONCEALER PENCIL or an ingredient of TRANQUILLITY oil. It follows that every ingredient of Expresso Yourself that is an ingredient of LASH PLUMPER is also an ingredient of TRANQUILLITY oil.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Being an ingredient of LIP JUICERS is sufficient for being an ingredient of 37 Eye Colour. Second premise: Every ingredient of Living Colors is an ingredient of Superstay Gloss or an ingredient of LIP JUICERS or an ingredient of CHEEK COLOUR CC03. Third premise: Whatever is an ingredient of Superstay Gloss is not an ingredient of 37 Eye Colour. In consequence, whatever is an ingredient of Living Colors is not an ingredient of 37 Eye Colour or an ingredient of CHEEK COLOUR CC03.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: It is false that Andy is a workmate of Joan. Second premise: To be a schoolmate of Ariel or a workmate of Joan is necessary for being a grandson of Darrell. Third premise: It is false that Andy is a schoolmate of Ariel. All this entails that it is false that Andy is a grandson of Darrell.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: It is not the case that Timothy is a great-grandfather of Ned. Every son of Tracy is either a great-grandfather of Ned or a grandson of Solomon, or both. It is not the case that Timothy is a grandson of Solomon. From this follows: It is false that Timothy is a son of Tracy.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, nothing is neither an ingredient of Frosty water nor an ingredient of Intuition. Moreover, nothing is neither an ingredient of Ginger Cream nor an ingredient of Frosty water. Therefore, every ingredient of Ginger Cream is an ingredient of Intuition.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, no critic of VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach who is an ex-fan of FC Dynamo Kyiv is a friend of Olympiacos FC. Next, whoever is not an ex-supporter of FC Lugano is a friend of Olympiacos FC. We may conclude: Whoever is none of this: an ex-fan of FC Dynamo Kyiv or critic of VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach, is an ex-supporter of FC Lugano.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, every ingredient of Skin Illuminator that is an ingredient of SATIN LIP SHINE is an ingredient of Peace On Earth or an ingredient of Teint Naturel. Now, every ingredient of Peace On Earth is neither an ingredient of Skin Illuminator nor an ingredient of SATIN LIP SHINE. We may conclude that whatever is not both an ingredient of Skin Illuminator and an ingredient of SATIN LIP SHINE is an ingredient of Teint Naturel.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, whoever is occasional purchaser of Crafted soap is at least one of these: an occasional purchaser of Tocca soap, a frequent consumer of Pacifica soap or a frequent consumer of Organix Hair shampoo. Moreover, being an occasional purchaser of Crafted soap is sufficient for not being an occasional purchaser of Tocca soap. From this follows: Every occasional purchaser of Crafted soap is either a frequent consumer of Pacifica soap or a frequent consumer of Organix Hair shampoo, or both.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, no supporter of FC Girondins de Bordeaux who is a member of Burnley FC is an ex-supporter of FC Arsenal Tula. Moreover, there is somebody who is an ex-supporter of FC Vorskla Poltava and an ex-supporter of FC Arsenal Tula. From this follows: Some ex-supporter of FC Vorskla Poltava is not a supporter of FC Girondins de Bordeaux or not a member of Burnley FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Being an ancestor of Henry is necessary for being a stepbrother of Eric. Second premise: Whoever is not a nephew of Jorge is a stepbrother of Eric. All this entails that no nephew of Jorge is an ancestor of Henry.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, whoever is not a sister of Christian is a niece of Valerie. Now, not being a granddaughter of Cortney is sufficient for not being a niece of Valerie. Hence, nobody is neither a sister of Christian nor a granddaughter of Cortney.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, being a cousin of Armida is necessary for not being a stepsister of Aimee. Second, being a cousin of Armida is necessary for not being a granddaughter of Tanisha. Third, no stepsister of Aubrey is a granddaughter of Tanisha and, in the same time, a stepsister of Aimee. From this follows: Being a stepsister of Aubrey is sufficient for being a cousin of Armida.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: No occasional purchaser of Bentley Organic soap is a loyal buyer of René Furterer shampoo. It is false that Ira is an occasional purchaser of Bentley Organic soap. Hence, it is not the case that Ira is a loyal buyer of René Furterer shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Every regular consumer of Giovanni shampoo is not a frequent consumer of Organic Fiji soap or not an infrequent user of Celtic Sea Salt soap. Second premise: Bonnie is a frequent consumer of Organic Fiji soap. We may conclude that it is not the case that Bonnie is a regular consumer of Giovanni shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Being a critic of Stade Rennais FC is necessary for being an opponent to SønderjyskE. Every opponent to SønderjyskE is a critic of Stade Rennais FC or a supporter of FC Rubin or a friend of Sporting Clube de Portugal. So, necessarily, every opponent to SønderjyskE is either a supporter of FC Rubin or a friend of Sporting Clube de Portugal, or both.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, every ingredient of ATOMIC VOLUME is neither an ingredient of Immense Mascara nor an ingredient of Pencil Skirt. Next, being an ingredient of Immense Mascara is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Dark Lash Adhesive. Plus,whatever is an ingredient of Pencil Skirt is not an ingredient of Dark Lash Adhesive. Therefore, whatever is an ingredient of ATOMIC VOLUME is not an ingredient of Dark Lash Adhesive.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, every supporter of Molde FK is a devotee of FC Nordsjælland. Hence, every devotee of FC Nordsjælland is a supporter of Molde FK.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, every devotee of Osmanlıspor is either an admirer of Alashkert FC or a friend of FC Admira Wacker Mödling, or both. Moreover, everyone who is both an admirer of Alashkert FC and a friend of FC Admira Wacker Mödling is a devotee of Osmanlıspor or an opponent to BSC Young Boys. All this entails that whoever is none of this: an admirer of Alashkert FC or friend of FC Admira Wacker Mödling, is an opponent to BSC Young Boys.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Everyone who is a half-sister of Helen or a daughter of Leola is also a half-sister of Hilda. Second premise: Kayla is a half-sister of Helen. In consequence, Kayla is a half-sister of Hilda.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, to be a cousin of Lauren or a workmate of Valerie is necessary for being an ancestor of Linda. Now, being an ancestor of Linda is sufficient for not being a cousin of Lauren. Hence, everyone who is an ancestor of Linda is a workmate of Valerie, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: No rare consumer of Softsoap soap is a regular consumer of Suave shampoo. Second premise: Being a regular consumer of Suave shampoo is sufficient for not being a rare consumer of Dermasil soap. We may conclude: Being a rare consumer of Softsoap soap is sufficient for not being a rare consumer of Dermasil soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Being a schoolmate of Denise is necessary for not being a stepsister of Marcie. Somebody is not a schoolmate of Denise and, in addition, not an ancestor of Hilda or not an aunt of Virginia. Therefore, there is somebody who is a stepsister of Marcie and not both an ancestor of Hilda and an aunt of Virginia.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, every regular consumer of Neutrogena shampoo is a regular consumer of Clearly Natural soap. Next, being a regular consumer of Clearly Natural soap is necessary for being a rare consumer of Dettol soap. Plus,whoever is neither a regular consumer of Dawn soap nor an owner of a Softsoap soap is a rare consumer of Dettol soap or a regular consumer of Neutrogena shampoo.we may conclude: Someone who is not a regular consumer of Clearly Natural soap is a regular consumer of Dawn soap or an owner of a Softsoap soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Every ex-supporter of AS Monaco FC is both an ex-supporter of KRC Genk and an admirer of PAOK FC. Second premise: Being a supporter of Olympique de Marseille is necessary for not being an admirer of PAOK FC. Third premise: Nobody is neither an ex-supporter of KRC Genk nor a supporter of Olympique de Marseille. We may conclude that everyone who is an ex-supporter of AS Monaco FC is a supporter of Olympique de Marseille, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Whoever is an occasional purchaser of Crafted soap is not a regular user of AXE shampoo. Second premise: Whoever is an infrequent user of The Body Shop soap is not an occasional purchaser of Crafted soap. Hence, no infrequent user of The Body Shop soap is a regular user of AXE shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, no loyal buyer of Shiseido shampoo who is an owner of a Garnier shampoo is an owner of a Neutrogena soap. Hence, every owner of a Neutrogena soap is neither an owner of a Garnier shampoo nor a loyal buyer of Shiseido shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Every opponent to Dundalk FC is an ex-fan of Liverpool FC. Second premise: Whoever is an ex-fan of FC Luzern is not an ex-fan of Liverpool FC. From this follows: Being an ex-fan of FC Luzern is necessary for not being an opponent to Dundalk FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Some critic of SC Freiburg is not a supporter of Kilmarnock FC or not an admirer of Alashkert FC. Second premise: Being a critic of SC Freiburg is necessary for not being a friend of F91 Dudelange. So, necessarily, not every friend of F91 Dudelange is both a supporter of Kilmarnock FC and an admirer of Alashkert FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, every workmate of Maryann is a classmate of Marjorie or a stepsister of Stephanie. Next, everyone who is neither a stepsister of Stephanie nor a classmate of Marjorie is a workmate of Maryann or a granddaughter of Rhonda. It follows that whoever is none of this: a stepsister of Stephanie or classmate of Marjorie, is a granddaughter of Rhonda.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Troy is an uncle of Larry. Being a great-grandfather of Louis or not being an uncle of Larry is sufficient for being a great-grandfather of Theodore. We may conclude: Troy is not a great-grandfather of Theodore.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Being an ingredient of Hey Sailor Laquer is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Lip Treatment Oil. Second premise: Being an ingredient of Hey Sailor Laquer is necessary for being an ingredient of PLUMPING LIP CR�ME. So, necessarily, being an ingredient of PLUMPING LIP CR�ME is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Lip Treatment Oil.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Whatever is an ingredient of Breakin the Bank is not an ingredient of MAKEUP POWDER. Second premise: Being an ingredient of Breakin the Bank is necessary for being an ingredient of Cabernet Ball Gown. From this follows: No ingredient of Cabernet Ball Gown is an ingredient of MAKEUP POWDER.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, it is not the case that Garry is a supporter of Club Atlético de Madrid. Now, every friend of APOEL FC is a fan of FC Spartak Moskva or a supporter of Club Atlético de Madrid. Moreover, Garry is not a fan of FC Spartak Moskva. All this entails that it is not the case that Garry is a friend of APOEL FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, it is false that Cocamide is an ingredient of No Blush Blush. Moreover, whatever is an ingredient of Revelation or an ingredient of Sun Lotion 24 is not an ingredient of No Blush Blush. Hence, Cocamide is an ingredient of Revelation or an ingredient of Sun Lotion 24.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Lucia is a loyal buyer of Biosilk shampoo. Second premise: Being an infrequent user of Eucalyptus soap or a loyal buyer of Biosilk shampoo is sufficient for being a rare consumer of L'Oreal shampoo. In consequence, Lucia is a rare consumer of L'Oreal shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, nobody is neither a classmate of Lily nor an ancestor of Perla. Now, somebody is a granddaughter of Mable and a classmate of Lily. All this entails that some ancestor of Perla is not a granddaughter of Mable.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, Nicole is neither a backer of CFR 1907 Cluj nor a member of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. Now, every member of FC Sheriff Tiraspol that is not a backer of CFR 1907 Cluj is an expert of FC Schalke 04. In consequence, Nicole is an expert of FC Schalke 04.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: Every sister of Teresa who is a schoolmate of Dolores is not a granddaughter of Leonor. In consequence, every granddaughter of Leonor is not a schoolmate of Dolores or not a sister of Teresa.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Every classmate of Peggy is a classmate of Alexandra. Second premise: Some classmate of Alexandra is not a schoolmate of Cindi. We may conclude that not every schoolmate of Cindi is a classmate of Peggy.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, every critic of ACF Fiorentina is a devotee of FK Austria Wien or a backer of FC Admira Wacker Mödling. Next, being a backer of FC Admira Wacker Mödling is sufficient for not being a friend of FC Olimpik Donetsk. Plus,being a devotee of FK Austria Wien is sufficient for not being a friend of FC Olimpik Donetsk. In consequence, whoever is a critic of ACF Fiorentina is not a friend of FC Olimpik Donetsk.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, no owner of a Caress soap is a regular consumer of Clairol shampoo and, in the same time, an occasional purchaser of Caswell-Massey soap. Second, nobody is neither a regular consumer of Clairol shampoo nor an infrequent user of Frederic Fekkai shampoo. Third, nobody is neither an occasional purchaser of Caswell-Massey soap nor an infrequent user of Frederic Fekkai shampoo. We may conclude: Being an owner of a Caress soap is sufficient for being an infrequent user of Frederic Fekkai shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, being an ingredient of Brazilian Hard Wax is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Essie Beam Up. Now, every ingredient of Brazilian Hard Wax is an ingredient of Essie Beam Up or an ingredient of A Touch Of Sass or an ingredient of YSL Eyebrow Pencil. We may conclude that every ingredient of Brazilian Hard Wax is either an ingredient of A Touch Of Sass or an ingredient of YSL Eyebrow Pencil, or both.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, being a stepbrother of Justin is necessary for not being a half-brother of Theodore. Now, no schoolmate of Perry who is a classmate of Jonathan is a stepbrother of Justin. All this entails that whoever is none of this: a classmate of Jonathan or schoolmate of Perry, is a half-brother of Theodore.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, to be a classmate of Arturo or a great-grandfather of Jesse is necessary for being a schoolmate of Jeff. Now, every classmate of Arturo who is a great-grandfather of Jesse is a schoolmate of Jeff or a close friend of Marvin. So, necessarily, whoever is none of this: a classmate of Arturo or great-grandfather of Jesse, is a close friend of Marvin.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: No regular user of Biolage shampoo is a frequent consumer of Celtic Sea Salt soap or a frequent consumer of Eucalyptus soap. Therefore, whoever is none of this: a frequent consumer of Celtic Sea Salt soap or frequent consumer of Eucalyptus soap, is a regular user of Biolage shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First, every backer of R. Standard de Liège is an ex-fan of CS Marítimo or an ex-fan of F91 Dudelange. Second, whoever is both an ex-fan of CS Marítimo and an ex-fan of F91 Dudelange is a backer of R. Standard de Liège or an admirer of Trabzonspor AŞ.we may conclude that whoever is none of this: an ex-fan of CS Marítimo or ex-fan of F91 Dudelange, is an admirer of Trabzonspor AŞ.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, not being a close friend of Sherry is sufficient for not being an ancestor of Kelly. Next, being an ancestor of Kelly is necessary for being a stepsister of Bonnie. All this entails that everyone who is a stepsister of Bonnie is a close friend of Sherry, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Being a great-grandfather of Jerry is necessary for not being a grandson of Leo. Somebody is not a great-grandfather of Jerry and, in addition, not an uncle of Mike or not a cousin of Darrell. We may conclude that some grandson of Leo is not both an uncle of Mike and a cousin of Darrell.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Everyone who is an aunt of Patricia is a daughter of Anne, too. Second premise: Being a niece of Marilyn is sufficient for being a daughter of Anne. Third premise: Every schoolmate of Esperanza who is a classmate of Lorraine is an aunt of Patricia or a niece of Marilyn. We may conclude that everyone who is both a schoolmate of Esperanza and a classmate of Lorraine is a daughter of Anne, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Every devotee of Sporting Clube de Portugal who is a friend of Chelsea FC is a critic of Akhisar Belediyespor or an ex-supporter of Stade Rennais FC. Every critic of Akhisar Belediyespor is not a devotee of Sporting Clube de Portugal or not a friend of Chelsea FC. Therefore, whoever is a devotee of Sporting Clube de Portugal and a friend of Chelsea FC is also an ex-supporter of Stade Rennais FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: No occasional purchaser of Purpose soap is a rare consumer of Bumble and bumble shampoo or an occasional purchaser of Organic Fiji soap. Hence, no occasional purchaser of Organic Fiji soap and no rare consumer of Bumble and bumble shampoo is an occasional purchaser of Purpose soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, every frequent consumer of TRESemmé shampoo is not a loyal buyer of Biosilk shampoo or not a regular consumer of L'Oreal shampoo. Moreover, every occasional purchaser of Colgate-Palmolive soap is a regular consumer of L'Oreal shampoo or a loyal buyer of Biosilk shampoo. We may conclude: Being an occasional purchaser of Colgate-Palmolive soap is sufficient for not being a frequent consumer of TRESemmé shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, Elizabeth is a cousin of Nelda. Moreover, every schoolmate of Shirley is not a cousin of Nelda or not a sister of Marcie. It follows that it is false that Elizabeth is a schoolmate of Shirley.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: No cousin of Bonnie is a schoolmate of Heather. Every cousin of Bonnie is not a half-sister of Diane or not a schoolmate of Heather. Therefore, no cousin of Bonnie is a half-sister of Diane.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Every schoolmate of Branden is not an uncle of Michael or not a son of Harry. Second premise: Whoever is a schoolmate of Branden is not a son of Harry. Hence, being a schoolmate of Branden is sufficient for not being an uncle of Michael.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, every schoolmate of Toni is an ancestor of Dorethea. Moreover, being a schoolmate of Toni is sufficient for being a daughter of Carmen. Finally, some niece of Leona is an ancestor of Dorethea and a daughter of Carmen. It follows that there is somebody who is a niece of Leona and a schoolmate of Toni.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Nobody is neither an ancestor of Matthew nor an uncle of Carl. Second premise: Not every stepbrother of Edmundo is both a nephew of Ramon and an uncle of Carl. Third premise: Being a nephew of Ramon is necessary for not being an ancestor of Matthew. Therefore, there is somebody who is a stepbrother of Edmundo and not an ancestor of Matthew.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, it is false that Andy is an ancestor of Jody. Second, Andy is not a nephew of Rolando. Third, no grandson of Anthony is an ancestor of Jody or a nephew of Rolando. It follows that it is not the case that Andy is a grandson of Anthony.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: It is not the case that Pearl is a fan of FC Vaduz. Everyone who is both a fan of FC Vaduz and a fan of The New Saints FC is a member of Manchester United FC, too. Pearl is a fan of The New Saints FC. From this follows: Pearl is not a member of Manchester United FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Whoever is an expert of CS Marítimo and a follower of FC Viktoria Plzeň is not a follower of Vitória SC. In consequence, every follower of Vitória SC is not an expert of CS Marítimo or not a follower of FC Viktoria Plzeň.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Being a cousin of Frederick is necessary for not being a classmate of Nicholas. Second premise: Whoever is neither a great-grandfather of Branden nor an uncle of Perry is not a cousin of Frederick. Hence, whoever is none of this: a great-grandfather of Branden or uncle of Perry, is a classmate of Nicholas.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, nobody is neither a devotee of Beşiktaş JK nor an admirer of FK Mladá Boleslav. Now, whoever is not a devotee of Beşiktaş JK is a devotee of SC Freiburg. Moreover, whoever is not an admirer of FC Kairat Almaty is not both a devotee of SC Freiburg and an admirer of FK Mladá Boleslav. All this entails that whoever is not a devotee of Beşiktaş JK is an admirer of FC Kairat Almaty.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, it is false that Heather is a sister of Shaunda. Moreover, nobody is neither a cousin of Kimberly nor a sister of Shaunda. We may conclude that Heather is a cousin of Kimberly.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, whoever is not an admirer of AZ Alkmaar is an ex-fan of PSV Eindhoven. Moreover, being an admirer of AZ Alkmaar is necessary for not being an opponent to ŠK Slovan Bratislava. We may conclude: Being an opponent to ŠK Slovan Bratislava is sufficient for being an ex-fan of PSV Eindhoven.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, every frequent consumer of Bee & Flower soap is a rare consumer of Kirk's soap. All this entails that not being a rare consumer of Kirk's soap is sufficient for not being a frequent consumer of Bee & Flower soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, some half-brother of Lance is a cousin of Roland. Moreover, whoever is a close friend of Howard is not a cousin of Roland. Hence, not every half-brother of Lance is a close friend of Howard.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Not being a great-grandmother of Yolanda is sufficient for not being a classmate of Erica. From this follows: Being a great-grandmother of Yolanda is necessary for being a classmate of Erica.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First, being an occasional purchaser of Dove shampoo is sufficient for not being an infrequent user of Shield soap. Second, it is false that Judith is an occasional purchaser of Dove shampoo. All this entails that it is false that Judith is an infrequent user of Shield soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Whatever is both an ingredient of Shape Of My Heart and an ingredient of my blusher 5 is an ingredient of HEMP SOAP ON A ROPE or an ingredient of Straight Works.Every ingredient of HEMP SOAP ON A ROPE is an ingredient of my blusher 5 or an ingredient of Shape Of My Heart. In consequence, whatever is none of this: an ingredient of Shape Of My Heart or ingredient of my blusher 5, is an ingredient of Straight Works.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Being an opponent to Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC is sufficient for being an expert of F.C. Copenhagen. Everyone who is a follower of SCR Altach is an expert of F.C. Copenhagen, too. Whoever is an admirer of Legia Warszawa is not an expert of F.C. Copenhagen. Every admirer of Brøndby IF is a follower of SCR Altach or an opponent to Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC or not an admirer of Legia Warszawa. In consequence, everyone who is an admirer of Brøndby IF is an expert of F.C. Copenhagen, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, every ingredient of Micro-Refiner is an ingredient of Lip Ritual or an ingredient of Snow Gel. Moreover, whatever is an ingredient of Snow Gel is not an ingredient of Sun Splash Mango. Finally, being an ingredient of Lip Ritual is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Sun Splash Mango. All this entails that no ingredient of Micro-Refiner is an ingredient of Sun Splash Mango.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, everyone who is not a workmate of Brenda is however a cousin of Erica and a classmate of Keisha. Next, Brittany is a cousin of Erica or a classmate of Keisha. We may conclude: It is false that Brittany is a workmate of Brenda.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Whoever is both a frequent consumer of Zest soap and a rare consumer of Matrix shampoo is an infrequent user of Clearly Natural soap or an owner of a Burt's Bees soap.second premise: No infrequent user of Clearly Natural soap is both a frequent consumer of Zest soap and a rare consumer of Matrix shampoo. We may conclude that whoever is a frequent consumer of Zest soap and a rare consumer of Matrix shampoo is also an owner of a Burt's Bees soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, every ingredient of Star Quality is neither an ingredient of Love My Jewels nor an ingredient of TZone Mattifier. Therefore, whatever is none of this: an ingredient of Love My Jewels or ingredient of TZone Mattifier, is an ingredient of Star Quality.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, whoever is not an infrequent user of Herbal Essences shampoo is an infrequent user of Bliss soap. Next, every rare consumer of Tocca soap is not a regular consumer of René Furterer shampoo or not an infrequent user of Herbal Essences shampoo. Plus,whoever is not a regular consumer of René Furterer shampoo is an infrequent user of Bliss soap. It follows that every rare consumer of Tocca soap is an infrequent user of Bliss soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, being an ingredient of Fizzbanger is necessary for not being an ingredient of Youki Hi Bath Bomb. Moreover, every ingredient of Youki Hi Bath Bomb is an ingredient of Fizzbanger or an ingredient of Pressed Base. Hence, being an ingredient of Youki Hi Bath Bomb is sufficient for being an ingredient of Pressed Base.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Every regular user of South of France soap is not a rare consumer of Natural Bar soap or not a loyal buyer of Organix Hair shampoo. Every owner of a Caress soap is a regular user of South of France soap. It follows that everyone who is an owner of a Caress soap is also a rare consumer of Natural Bar soap and a loyal buyer of Organix Hair shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, being a rare consumer of Infusium shampoo is necessary for not being a regular consumer of Clearly Natural soap. Second, no occasional purchaser of Origins soap is a regular consumer of Clearly Natural soap. We may conclude: Every occasional purchaser of Origins soap is a rare consumer of Infusium shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, being an opponent to Rangers FC is necessary for not being a backer of Sevilla FC. Now, being an ex-fan of FC Shakhtar Donetsk is sufficient for being a backer of Sevilla FC. From this follows: Being an ex-fan of FC Shakhtar Donetsk is sufficient for not being an opponent to Rangers FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, whatever is not an ingredient of TOTAL FINISH TF203 is an ingredient of Blush Rush (Bare). Next, nothing is neither an ingredient of TOTAL FINISH TF203 nor an ingredient of Liquid Lipstick. Plus,everything that is not an ingredient of Natural day cream is not both an ingredient of Liquid Lipstick and an ingredient of Blush Rush (Bare). From this follows: Whatever is not an ingredient of TOTAL FINISH TF203 is an ingredient of Natural day cream.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, every uncle of Lawrence is a brother of Cornelius. Moreover, whoever is both a classmate of Bobby and a brother of Rene is an uncle of Lawrence or a classmate of Terry.finally, no classmate of Terry is a brother of Cornelius. We may conclude: No classmate of Bobby who is a brother of Rene is a brother of Cornelius.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Being a stepsister of Malinda or a half-sister of Doris is sufficient for being a niece of Melissia. Second premise: It is not the case that Elsa is a half-sister of Doris. From this follows: It is not the case that Elsa is a niece of Melissia.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Some close friend of Sean is not both a nephew of Gregory and a cousin of Troy. Second premise: Nobody is neither an ancestor of Ron nor a close friend of Sean. We may conclude: Some nephew of Gregory is a cousin of Troy and an ancestor of Ron.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Nobody is neither a cousin of Darrell nor a classmate of Danial. Second premise: Not every son of Carlos is a classmate of Danial. Therefore, some son of Carlos is not a cousin of Darrell.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, everyone who is both a rare consumer of American Crew shampoo and a regular user of John Frieda shampoo is an occasional purchaser of Proactiv soap or a loyal buyer of Paul Mitchell soap. Next, being a loyal buyer of Paul Mitchell soap is sufficient for not being a rare consumer of Irish Spring soap. Plus,every occasional purchaser of Proactiv soap is a rare consumer of Irish Spring soap. So, necessarily, every regular user of John Frieda shampoo who is a rare consumer of American Crew shampoo is not a rare consumer of Irish Spring soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, every member of UC Sampdoria is both a supporter of FC Slovan Liberec and an ex-supporter of Apollon Limassol FC. Now, Theda is not both: a supporter of FC Slovan Liberec and an ex-supporter of Apollon Limassol FC. All this entails that it is not the case that Theda is a member of UC Sampdoria.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Everyone who is not both a niece of Edna and a schoolmate of Angie is an ancestor of Eva. Helen is a schoolmate of Angie. In consequence, Helen is not an ancestor of Eva.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First, whatever is not an ingredient of EYE SHADOW No 171 is an ingredient of Blusher (Bashful). Second, whatever is not an ingredient of BRIGHTENING ESSENCE is not an ingredient of Blusher (Bashful) or not an ingredient of NARS Lip Treatment. Third, being an ingredient of NARS Lip Treatment is necessary for not being an ingredient of EYE SHADOW No 171. It follows that nothing is neither an ingredient of EYE SHADOW No 171 nor an ingredient of BRIGHTENING ESSENCE.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First, Donna is an expert of Feyenoord. Second, no devotee of FC Utrecht is an expert of Feyenoord. All this entails that it is false that Donna is a devotee of FC Utrecht.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, being an ancestor of Anita is sufficient for being a close friend of Lily. Second, being an ancestor of Anita is necessary for not being a sister of Judith. Hence, nobody is neither a sister of Judith nor a close friend of Lily.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, every ingredient of You Wash My Back is an ingredient of Hip Hot Coral. Now, everything that is both an ingredient of SILKY EYE PENCIL 33 and an ingredient of MagneFix is an ingredient of You Wash My Back, too. From this follows: Every ingredient of MagneFix that is an ingredient of SILKY EYE PENCIL 33 is also an ingredient of Hip Hot Coral.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, whoever is an ex-supporter of FK Sūduva is not an ex-fan of FK Žalgiris Vilnius. Second, being an ex-fan of FK Žalgiris Vilnius is necessary for being an admirer of CFR 1907 Cluj. So, necessarily, no admirer of CFR 1907 Cluj is an ex-supporter of FK Sūduva.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, every admirer of Royal Antwerp FC is an ex-fan of FC Lokomotiv Moskva or a friend of RCD Espanyol or a critic of Manchester City FC. Moreover, whoever is an admirer of Royal Antwerp FC is not an ex-fan of FC Lokomotiv Moskva. Therefore, every admirer of Royal Antwerp FC is a friend of RCD Espanyol or a critic of Manchester City FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, every regular consumer of TIGI shampoo is neither an owner of a KMS shampoo nor a loyal buyer of Aveeno soap. Moreover, it is false that Tyrone is an owner of a KMS shampoo. Finally, Tyrone is not a loyal buyer of Aveeno soap. Therefore, Tyrone is not a regular consumer of TIGI shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, there is something that is an ingredient of MegaPlump Lip Gloss and an ingredient of Opaque White. Now, being an ingredient of Eysmoothing roll-on is necessary for not being an ingredient of Opaque White. Therefore, some ingredient of Eysmoothing roll-on is not an ingredient of MegaPlump Lip Gloss.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, being a workmate of Keri is necessary for not being a granddaughter of Penny. Next, whoever is neither a workmate of Lois nor a classmate of Carmen is not a workmate of Keri. In consequence, whoever is none of this: a workmate of Lois or classmate of Carmen, is a granddaughter of Penny.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, every devotee of FK Kukësi is an ex-fan of SC Freiburg. Second, whoever is devotee of FK Kukësi is at least one of these: an ex-fan of SC Freiburg, a devotee of FC Astana or an opponent to SK Sturm Graz. We may conclude that every devotee of FK Kukësi is a devotee of FC Astana or an opponent to SK Sturm Graz.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Some regular user of Bath & Body Works soap is not a frequent consumer of Burt's Bees soap or not a loyal buyer of Frederic Fekkai shampoo. Being a regular user of Bath & Body Works soap is necessary for not being a rare consumer of Dove soap. We may conclude: There is somebody who is a rare consumer of Dove soap and not both a frequent consumer of Burt's Bees soap and a loyal buyer of Frederic Fekkai shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, no ancestor of Freddy is a stepbrother of Bradford. Next, being a close friend of Nicholas is necessary for not being a stepbrother of Bradford. We may conclude that being a close friend of Nicholas is necessary for being an ancestor of Freddy.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: No infrequent user of Cetaphil soap is a frequent consumer of AXE shampoo. Second premise: Every owner of a Aveeno soap is neither an infrequent user of Cetaphil soap nor a frequent consumer of Aveeno shampoo. Third premise: Being a frequent consumer of Aveeno shampoo is sufficient for not being a frequent consumer of AXE shampoo. We may conclude: Being an owner of a Aveeno soap is sufficient for not being a frequent consumer of AXE shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: No occasional purchaser of Irish Spring soap who is a frequent consumer of Organix Hair shampoo is a loyal buyer of Celtic Sea Salt soap. Being a loyal buyer of Celtic Sea Salt soap is necessary for not being a frequent consumer of American Crew shampoo. Hence, whoever is none of this: a frequent consumer of Organix Hair shampoo or occasional purchaser of Irish Spring soap, is a frequent consumer of American Crew shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, every backer of FC Kairat Almaty and every follower of AS Saint-Étienne is a follower of KKS Lech Poznań. Now, it is not the case that Terry is a follower of KKS Lech Poznań. From this follows: It is not the case that Terry is a backer of FC Kairat Almaty or a follower of AS Saint-Étienne.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, every schoolmate of Aubrey is a granddaughter of Darlene and a daughter of Janice. Next, Laurinda is not a granddaughter of Darlene or not a daughter of Janice. We may conclude that it is not the case that Laurinda is a schoolmate of Aubrey.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, whoever is a frequent consumer of Joico shampoo is not an occasional purchaser of Clairol shampoo. Next, every frequent consumer of Joico shampoo is not an owner of a Ivory soap or an occasional purchaser of Clairol shampoo. From this follows: Whoever is a frequent consumer of Joico shampoo is not an owner of a Ivory soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First, no great-grandfather of Saul is a brother of Todd. Second, no son of Troy is a workmate of Samuel or a great-grandfather of Saul. Third, being a workmate of Samuel is sufficient for not being a brother of Todd. So, necessarily, being a son of Troy is sufficient for not being a brother of Todd.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, being an ingredient of Blue Bikini is necessary for being an ingredient of Powder Foundation. Next, no ingredient of CHROME CLAY MASK is an ingredient of Blue Bikini. We may conclude that whatever is an ingredient of Powder Foundation is not an ingredient of CHROME CLAY MASK.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: No frequent consumer of Origins soap is a loyal buyer of Purpose soap or a rare consumer of AXE shampoo. Second premise: Every loyal buyer of Softsoap soap is a loyal buyer of Purpose soap or a rare consumer of AXE shampoo. We may conclude that no loyal buyer of Softsoap soap is a frequent consumer of Origins soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Every occasional purchaser of Suave shampoo is an owner of a Shield soap. Second premise: Being a rare consumer of Sexy Hair shampoo is necessary for being an occasional purchaser of Suave shampoo. Third premise: There is somebody who is an owner of a Biolage shampoo and, in addition, not a rare consumer of Sexy Hair shampoo or not an owner of a Shield soap. Hence, not every owner of a Biolage shampoo is an occasional purchaser of Suave shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, every cousin of Elsie is a great-grandmother of Malinda. Next, every great-grandmother of Malinda is not a granddaughter of Agnes or not a close friend of Lorraine. All this entails that no cousin of Elsie is both a close friend of Lorraine and a granddaughter of Agnes.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, no ancestor of Erica is a classmate of Patty or a sister of Priscilla. In consequence, no sister of Priscilla and no classmate of Patty is an ancestor of Erica.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Every cousin of Samuel is not a son of Curt or a great-grandfather of Jorge. Second premise: Being a son of Curt is necessary for being a cousin of Samuel. All this entails that everyone who is a cousin of Samuel is a great-grandfather of Jorge, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, every workmate of Benny is not a nephew of Phillip or not a nephew of Leroy. Moreover, being a workmate of Benny is sufficient for not being a nephew of Phillip. Hence, whoever is a workmate of Benny is not a nephew of Leroy.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First, nothing is neither an ingredient of Clay Nail Polish nor an ingredient of Error 404. Second, everything that is both an ingredient of Lacquer Sweet Hook and an ingredient of Tarteist Lip Paint is not an ingredient of Error 404. So, necessarily, every ingredient of Lacquer Sweet Hook that is an ingredient of Tarteist Lip Paint is also an ingredient of Clay Nail Polish.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: No friend of Athletic Club is both an opponent to Eintracht Frankfurt and an ex-supporter of Kilmarnock FC. Every opponent to Eintracht Frankfurt who is an ex-supporter of Kilmarnock FC is a friend of Athletic Club or a supporter of Manchester United FC. From this follows: Whoever is an opponent to Eintracht Frankfurt and an ex-supporter of Kilmarnock FC is also a supporter of Manchester United FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Every schoolmate of Theodore is a son of Lawrence or a schoolmate of Terry. Every workmate of William is a schoolmate of Theodore. All this entails that every workmate of William is a schoolmate of Terry or a son of Lawrence.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: To start with, whoever is not a regular consumer of Dawn soap is however a regular consumer of Bentley Organic soap or a frequent consumer of Pacifica soap. Now, no regular user of Paul Mitchell soap is a regular consumer of Bentley Organic soap. Moreover, no regular user of Paul Mitchell soap is a frequent consumer of Pacifica soap. In consequence, no regular consumer of Dawn soap is a regular user of Paul Mitchell soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Everything that is not an ingredient of Tri-Retinol Complex and not an ingredient of 10 FRUITY LIPSTICK is an ingredient of Kitsune Bath Bomb or an ingredient of Chiffon. Second premise: Every ingredient of Kitsune Bath Bomb is either an ingredient of Tri-Retinol Complex or an ingredient of 10 FRUITY LIPSTICK, or both. We may conclude that whatever is none of this: an ingredient of Tri-Retinol Complex or ingredient of 10 FRUITY LIPSTICK, is an ingredient of Chiffon.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Every daughter of Amy is a half-sister of Dawn or a workmate of Candida or not a great-grandmother of Marisa. Second premise: Being a cousin of Gillian is necessary for being a workmate of Candida. Third premise: Every half-sister of Dawn is a cousin of Gillian. Fourth premise: Being a great-grandmother of Marisa is sufficient for not being a cousin of Gillian. Hence, every daughter of Amy is a cousin of Gillian.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Everything that is an ingredient of Impulse is an ingredient of Revitalizing Mask 2, too. Whatever is an ingredient of Impulse is not an ingredient of Revitalizing Mask 2 or an ingredient of ZR NAIL ENAMEL ASIA. All this entails that being an ingredient of ZR NAIL ENAMEL ASIA is necessary for being an ingredient of Impulse.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, whatever is not an ingredient of Lipstick (Candy) is an ingredient of my blusher 2. Second, being an ingredient of 05 CONCEALER is necessary for not being an ingredient of Lipstick (Candy). Third, whatever is not an ingredient of MASCARA & EYELINER is not an ingredient of 05 CONCEALER or not an ingredient of my blusher 2. It follows that being an ingredient of MASCARA & EYELINER is necessary for not being an ingredient of Lipstick (Candy).\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, Frederick is a regular user of Yardley London soap. Next, no regular user of Yardley London soap is a frequent consumer of Aveeno shampoo. Hence, it is false that Frederick is a frequent consumer of Aveeno shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Being an ingredient of True Clear is necessary for being an ingredient of CHEEKS BLUSHER 56. Second premise: Every ingredient of Artists' Eyes is an ingredient of CHEEKS BLUSHER 56 or an ingredient of Sweet Temptation or not an ingredient of Thickening Mascara. Third premise: Being an ingredient of Thickening Mascara is sufficient for not being an ingredient of True Clear. Fourth premise: Every ingredient of Sweet Temptation is an ingredient of True Clear. Therefore, everything that is an ingredient of Artists' Eyes is an ingredient of True Clear, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: Every ingredient of HEALTHY GLOW CREAM that is an ingredient of real fit lipstick 6 is an ingredient of Neon Purple Panic or an ingredient of Solar Power. Whatever is an ingredient of Solar Power is not an ingredient of ageLOC Me Day T2. Every ingredient of Neon Purple Panic is an ingredient of ageLOC Me Day T2. In consequence, every ingredient of HEALTHY GLOW CREAM that is an ingredient of real fit lipstick 6 is not an ingredient of ageLOC Me Day T2.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, being an ingredient of Clarity is sufficient for being an ingredient of Copperhead. Moreover, everything that is an ingredient of Here's to Us! is an ingredient of Copperhead, too. Hence, being an ingredient of Here's to Us! is necessary for being an ingredient of Clarity.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, to be a member of Wolfsberger AC or a friend of FK Žalgiris Vilnius is necessary for being a backer of Arsenal FC. Second, no opponent to KF Shkëndija is both a member of Wolfsberger AC and a friend of FK Žalgiris Vilnius. All this entails that being a backer of Arsenal FC is sufficient for not being an opponent to KF Shkëndija.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, everyone who is not a nephew of Peter is not a brother of Matthew or not a half-brother of Danial. Moreover, whoever is not an uncle of Jose is a brother of Matthew. Finally, being a half-brother of Danial is necessary for not being an uncle of Jose. From this follows: Whoever is not an uncle of Jose is a nephew of Peter.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, whoever is not a rare consumer of Kirk's soap is an owner of a CHI shampoo. Now, it is false that Kimberly is a rare consumer of Kirk's soap. So, necessarily, Kimberly is an owner of a CHI shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, no backer of SCR Altach is an ex-supporter of SK Slavia Praha. Second, someone who is not an admirer of FC Utrecht is an ex-supporter of FC Kairat Almaty or an ex-supporter of SK Slavia Praha. Third, no backer of SCR Altach is an ex-supporter of FC Kairat Almaty. So, necessarily, no admirer of FC Utrecht is a backer of SCR Altach.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, being a daughter of Barbara is necessary for being a schoolmate of Holly. Second, whoever is sister of Monserrate is at least one of these: a schoolmate of Holly, a half-sister of Elaine or an aunt of Leslie. Third, every half-sister of Elaine is a daughter of Barbara. In consequence, every sister of Monserrate is a daughter of Barbara or an aunt of Leslie.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Consumer research aims at understanding whether users of some products also tend to consume other ones, or not. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, whoever is not an infrequent user of Dial soap is a frequent consumer of Bentley Organic soap. Now, not every occasional purchaser of TIGI shampoo is a frequent consumer of Bentley Organic soap. Therefore, somebody is an occasional purchaser of TIGI shampoo and not an infrequent user of Dial soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Being an ingredient of FLAUNT MOISTURIZER is necessary for being an ingredient of Moisturing Shampoo. Second premise: Whatever is an ingredient of Moisturing Shampoo is not an ingredient of FLAUNT MOISTURIZER or an ingredient of Brush-On Gel Glue. We may conclude that being an ingredient of Moisturing Shampoo is sufficient for being an ingredient of Brush-On Gel Glue.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, every stepsister of Sue is not a stepsister of Jana or not a sister of Claudia. Second, being a workmate of Lois is necessary for being a sister of Claudia. Third, being a workmate of Lois is necessary for being a stepsister of Jana. Therefore, every stepsister of Sue is a workmate of Lois.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, Jannie is a daughter of Cindy. Next, every great-grandmother of Danielle is not a granddaughter of Margaret or not a daughter of Cindy. In consequence, Jannie is not a great-grandmother of Danielle.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, no ingredient of SOOTHING CORRECTOR is an ingredient of Pro White. Next, no ingredient of Trugel Nautical is an ingredient of Pro White. Plus,no ingredient of Perfect White is an ingredient of SOOTHING CORRECTOR or an ingredient of Trugel Nautical. It follows that no ingredient of Perfect White is an ingredient of Pro White.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Every follower of Legia Warszawa is neither a member of SL Benfica nor a supporter of F91 Dudelange. Second premise: To be a member of SL Benfica or a supporter of F91 Dudelange is necessary for being a follower of FC Arouca. It follows that being a follower of FC Arouca is sufficient for not being a follower of Legia Warszawa.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, every regular user of Biolage shampoo is an owner of a Herbal Essences shampoo. Next, no regular consumer of Natural Bar soap is an owner of a Herbal Essences shampoo. We may conclude: Whoever is not a regular user of Biolage shampoo is a regular consumer of Natural Bar soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, every great-grandmother of Ana is an aunt of Mildred or a classmate of Eva or a niece of Dovie. Second, everyone who is a great-grandmother of Ana is a niece of Dovie, too. Third, being an aunt of Mildred is necessary for being a great-grandmother of Ana. All this entails that everyone who is a great-grandmother of Ana is a classmate of Eva, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, being an ingredient of FLAUNT BRONZER is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Creamy Lipstick. Now, it is false that Sodium Bromate is an ingredient of Creamy Lipstick. Hence, sodium Bromate is an ingredient of FLAUNT BRONZER.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, no sister of Bonnie is both a schoolmate of Tracey and a niece of Lynn. Now, whoever is not a niece of Lynn is a half-sister of Maureen. Moreover, being a half-sister of Maureen is necessary for not being a schoolmate of Tracey. We may conclude: Being a half-sister of Maureen is necessary for being a sister of Bonnie.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, every ex-supporter of Bayer 04 Leverkusen who is a fan of NK Domžale is also an expert of FC Slovan Liberec. Next, being an expert of FC Basel 1893 is sufficient for not being an ex-supporter of Bayer 04 Leverkusen. Plus,whoever is an expert of FC Basel 1893 is not a fan of NK Domžale. It follows that being an expert of FC Basel 1893 is sufficient for being an expert of FC Slovan Liberec.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, being a supporter of SS Lazio is sufficient for being an expert of SK Rapid Wien. Moreover, every expert of SK Rapid Wien is not an opponent to Burnley FC or not a fan of FC Viktoria Plzeň. It follows that no supporter of SS Lazio is a fan of FC Viktoria Plzeň and, in the same time, an opponent to Burnley FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, being an ex-supporter of SC Freiburg is sufficient for being a supporter of FK Žalgiris Vilnius. We may conclude: Being an ex-supporter of SC Freiburg is necessary for being a supporter of FK Žalgiris Vilnius.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, every ingredient of CHOPSTICK PENCIL 26 is either an ingredient of Creamy Concealer or an ingredient of Liquid Blush, or both. Moreover, no ingredient of CHOPSTICK PENCIL 26 is an ingredient of Creamy Concealer. All this entails that every ingredient of CHOPSTICK PENCIL 26 is an ingredient of Liquid Blush.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: It is not the case that Steven is a son of Dewayne or a nephew of Andy. Every nephew of Andy that is not a son of Dewayne is a great-grandfather of Vernon. We may conclude: Steven is a great-grandfather of Vernon.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Every half-brother of Steve is not a brother of Allan or not a half-brother of Marvin. Every half-brother of Tony is a half-brother of Steve. We may conclude that no half-brother of Tony is a half-brother of Marvin or a brother of Allan.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, every ingredient of Down Boy is either an ingredient of blush oil - crave or an ingredient of Colorstay Brow Kit, or both. Moreover, everything that is both an ingredient of blush oil - crave and an ingredient of Colorstay Brow Kit is an ingredient of Down Boy or an ingredient of Intellishade Matte. We may conclude that whatever is none of this: an ingredient of blush oil - crave or ingredient of Colorstay Brow Kit, is an ingredient of Intellishade Matte.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: Every supporter of FC Porto is a follower of GNK Dinamo Zagreb. Every follower of GNK Dinamo Zagreb is either a supporter of Hapoel Beer-Sheva FC or an ex-supporter of Olympiacos FC, or both. It follows that every supporter of FC Porto is a supporter of Hapoel Beer-Sheva FC or an ex-supporter of Olympiacos FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: Maria is not an opponent to HJK Helsinki or not a supporter of SSC Napoli. Every admirer of SønderjyskE is a supporter of SSC Napoli and an opponent to HJK Helsinki. Therefore, Maria is not an admirer of SønderjyskE.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, Monica is an admirer of FC Ufa. Now, everyone who is not both an admirer of FC Ufa and an ex-supporter of Vitesse is an ex-supporter of APOEL FC. Therefore, it is not the case that Monica is an ex-supporter of APOEL FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, whoever is a granddaughter of Virgie is not a granddaughter of Tasha. Second, every granddaughter of Virgie is a granddaughter of Tasha or a workmate of Kum or a stepsister of Bridget. Third, whoever is a granddaughter of Virgie is not a stepsister of Bridget. We may conclude: Being a granddaughter of Virgie is sufficient for being a workmate of Kum.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, nothing is neither an ingredient of WATERPROOF MASCARA nor an ingredient of Photo Plasma. Moreover, every ingredient of WATERPROOF MASCARA is an ingredient of Photo Plasma or an ingredient of EYE LINER PENCIL. It follows that being an ingredient of WATERPROOF MASCARA is sufficient for being an ingredient of EYE LINER PENCIL.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Every nephew of Winford is either a great-grandfather of Alvin or an uncle of Clinton, or both. Everyone who is both a great-grandfather of Alvin and an uncle of Clinton is a nephew of Winford or a son of Gary. We may conclude that whoever is none of this: a great-grandfather of Alvin or uncle of Clinton, is a son of Gary.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: It is not the case that Eula is a half-sister of Tamara. No workmate of Margie and no stepsister of Rose is a half-sister of Tamara. In consequence, Eula is a workmate of Margie or a stepsister of Rose.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, every rare consumer of KMS shampoo who is an owner of a Aveeno shampoo is a rare consumer of Colgate-Palmolive soap or a regular user of Sunsilk shampoo. Next, no rare consumer of Colgate-Palmolive soap is both a rare consumer of KMS shampoo and an owner of a Aveeno shampoo. Therefore, every rare consumer of KMS shampoo who is an owner of a Aveeno shampoo is also a regular user of Sunsilk shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Everyone who is both a regular user of Aussie shampoo and a frequent consumer of Softsoap soap is not an infrequent user of Infusium shampoo. We may conclude: Every infrequent user of Infusium shampoo is not a regular user of Aussie shampoo or not a frequent consumer of Softsoap soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: Acetaldehyde is not an ingredient of Petal To The Metal. Every ingredient of Petal To The Metal is an ingredient of Soft Body Wash. All this entails that Acetaldehyde is not an ingredient of Soft Body Wash.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Being a member of Paris Saint-Germain is sufficient for not being a friend of Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC. Second premise: Darin is not a friend of Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC. Hence, it is not the case that Darin is a member of Paris Saint-Germain.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, Yee is a schoolmate of Dolores or a great-grandmother of Tanisha. Moreover, everyone who is not a cousin of Betty is however a schoolmate of Dolores and a great-grandmother of Tanisha. Hence, it is false that Yee is a cousin of Betty.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First, every regular consumer of Revlon shampoo who is an infrequent user of Shield soap is not an infrequent user of Neutrogena shampoo. Second, no infrequent user of Neutrogena shampoo is a loyal buyer of Aveda shampoo. It follows that every infrequent user of Shield soap who is a regular consumer of Revlon shampoo is also a loyal buyer of Aveda shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: There exists an uncle of Fred who is not a brother of Andre or not a schoolmate of Joshua. Nobody is neither a stepbrother of Stephen nor an uncle of Fred. So, necessarily, some stepbrother of Stephen is not both a brother of Andre and a schoolmate of Joshua.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Whoever is fan of KV Oostende is at least one of these: a fan of RSC Anderlecht, a backer of Beşiktaş JK or an opponent to Burnley FC. Second premise: Everyone who is a fan of KV Oostende is a fan of RSC Anderlecht, too. Third premise: Being an opponent to Burnley FC is necessary for being a fan of KV Oostende. From this follows: Being a fan of KV Oostende is sufficient for being a backer of Beşiktaş JK.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, every ingredient of MODI GLAM NAILS 96 is not an ingredient of Serum 16 or not an ingredient of COMPACT POWDER 01. Second, nothing is neither an ingredient of COMPACT POWDER 01 nor an ingredient of My Nightly Craving. Third, nothing is neither an ingredient of Serum 16 nor an ingredient of My Nightly Craving. We may conclude: Being an ingredient of My Nightly Craving is necessary for being an ingredient of MODI GLAM NAILS 96.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First premise: Everyone who is a member of Feyenoord is an opponent to AEK Athens FC, too. Second premise: Flora is an opponent to AEK Athens FC. We may conclude: Flora is a member of Feyenoord.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, everyone who is both a classmate of Haley and a cousin of Carol is not a close friend of Hazel. Now, being a close friend of Hazel is necessary for being a half-sister of Gabriella. Hence, whoever is not a classmate of Haley and not a cousin of Carol is however a half-sister of Gabriella.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, every loyal buyer of Ivory soap is not a frequent consumer of Eucalyptus soap or not a regular user of Dove shampoo. Second, being a loyal buyer of Ivory soap is necessary for being a regular consumer of Clairol shampoo. Hence, every regular consumer of Clairol shampoo is neither a frequent consumer of Eucalyptus soap nor a regular user of Dove shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To begin with, everyone who is both a sister of Dawn and a workmate of Jessica is not an ancestor of Lillian. We may conclude that no ancestor of Lillian is a sister of Dawn or a workmate of Jessica.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First premise: Everyone who is a fan of Dundalk FC is a friend of FK Crvena zvezda, too. Second premise: Some admirer of Southampton FC is not a friend of FK Crvena zvezda. So, necessarily, there is somebody who is an admirer of Southampton FC and not a fan of Dundalk FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, no workmate of Helen is both a great-grandmother of Margie and a stepsister of Terry. Second, every classmate of Hellen is a great-grandmother of Margie or a stepsister of Terry. It follows that whoever is a classmate of Hellen is not a workmate of Helen.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, nothing is neither an ingredient of Conditioner nor an ingredient of Macaroons Color Gel. Second, there exists an ingredient of Macaroons Color Gel that is not an ingredient of Lemonade Acrylic or not an ingredient of Nail polish - baie. All this entails that some ingredient of Conditioner is not both an ingredient of Lemonade Acrylic and an ingredient of Nail polish - baie.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, not being an ex-fan of AS Saint-Étienne is sufficient for not being an admirer of OGC Nice. Therefore, not being an admirer of OGC Nice is sufficient for not being an ex-fan of AS Saint-Étienne.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, there exists a regular user of Vaseline soap who is a regular consumer of Paul Mitchell shampoo while not a regular user of Protex soap. Next, being a regular user of Protex soap is necessary for not being an occasional purchaser of Colgate-Palmolive soap. We may conclude: There exists a regular user of Vaseline soap who is a regular consumer of Paul Mitchell shampoo and an occasional purchaser of Colgate-Palmolive soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, whoever is member of FK Kukësi is at least one of these: a friend of Vitória SC, a fan of Celtic FC or an opponent to Apollon Limassol FC. Moreover, whoever is a member of FK Kukësi is not a friend of Vitória SC. It follows that every member of FK Kukësi is an opponent to Apollon Limassol FC or a fan of Celtic FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, it is not the case that Sandra is an ex-fan of ŠK Slovan Bratislava or an opponent to RC Celta de Vigo. Now, everybody who is neither an opponent to RC Celta de Vigo nor an ex-fan of ŠK Slovan Bratislava is however a member of SK Rapid Wien. We may conclude that Sandra is a member of SK Rapid Wien.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, being a schoolmate of Clayton is necessary for being a brother of Erik. Now, being a classmate of Trevor is sufficient for not being a schoolmate of Clayton. So, necessarily, whoever is not a brother of Erik is a classmate of Trevor.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: Being an owner of a Infusium shampoo is sufficient for not being a loyal buyer of CHI shampoo. Nobody is neither a loyal buyer of CHI shampoo nor a loyal buyer of Bed Head shampoo. All this entails that every owner of a Infusium shampoo is a loyal buyer of Bed Head shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, no backer of SK Rapid Wien is a friend of FK Sūduva. Next, every backer of SK Rapid Wien is not a backer of UC Sampdoria or not a friend of FK Sūduva. So, necessarily, no backer of SK Rapid Wien is a backer of UC Sampdoria.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, nobody is neither a cousin of Lori nor a great-grandmother of Ilse. So, necessarily, no great-grandmother of Ilse is a cousin of Lori.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, every aunt of Bernice is not a classmate of Nelda or not a great-grandmother of Beatrice. Next, whoever is an aunt of Bernice is not a classmate of Nelda. We may conclude that no aunt of Bernice is a great-grandmother of Beatrice.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: Being a schoolmate of Nichole is sufficient for being a great-grandmother of Beatriz. Second premise: Being a great-grandmother of Beatriz is sufficient for not being a workmate of Melissia. We may conclude that whoever is a schoolmate of Nichole is not a workmate of Melissia.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a fan of Liverpool? Are supporters of Real Madrid devotees of PSG? In European football, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the mutual admiration and dislike. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To begin with, being a backer of Real Betis Balompié is sufficient for not being a backer of FC Zenit. Moreover, no ex-fan of FC Viitorul is a backer of FC Zenit. Finally, every ex-fan of FC Arsenal Tula is a backer of Real Betis Balompié or an ex-fan of FC Viitorul. From this follows: No ex-fan of FC Arsenal Tula is a backer of FC Zenit.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: To start with, no cousin of Melvin is an uncle of Ronald. Now, every cousin of Melvin is not a workmate of Solomon or not an uncle of Ronald. From this follows: Whoever is a cousin of Melvin is not a workmate of Solomon.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: Not being an ingredient of Glitter In The Air is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Happiness. All this entails that being an ingredient of Happiness is sufficient for being an ingredient of Glitter In The Air.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, whoever is a schoolmate of Aimee and a workmate of Melissa is also a daughter of Samantha.next, no half-sister of Elizabeth is a workmate of Melissa. Plus,being a half-sister of Elizabeth is sufficient for not being a schoolmate of Aimee. Hence, everyone who is a half-sister of Elizabeth is a daughter of Samantha, too.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: First premise: There is somebody who is a member of FC Mariupol and not an ex-fan of FC Arouca. Second premise: Being an ex-fan of FC Arouca is necessary for being an ex-fan of St Johnstone FC. Therefore, not every member of FC Mariupol is an ex-fan of St Johnstone FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, being a loyal buyer of Shield soap is necessary for not being a rare consumer of Infusium shampoo. Next, some loyal buyer of Shield soap is not both a rare consumer of Frederic Fekkai shampoo and a loyal buyer of Burt's Bees shampoo. From this follows: Some rare consumer of Frederic Fekkai shampoo is a loyal buyer of Burt's Bees shampoo and a rare consumer of Infusium shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First of all, it is not the case that Methanol is an ingredient of Shimmering or an ingredient of Venus di Violet. Next, every ingredient of Venus di Violet that is not an ingredient of Shimmering is an ingredient of Blush Rush (Bare). It follows that Methanol is an ingredient of Blush Rush (Bare).\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see which chemicals are contained in our consumer products. The following argument pertains to this question: To begin with, being an ingredient of Rock Star Soap is sufficient for not being an ingredient of Flavored Lip Gloss. Moreover, it is false that Methylene glycol is an ingredient of Flavored Lip Gloss. All this entails that it is not the case that Methylene glycol is an ingredient of Rock Star Soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, every half-sister of Ethel is a close friend of Aimee. Second, every half-sister of Ethel is a close friend of Aimee or a stepsister of Penny or a great-grandmother of Denise. It follows that every half-sister of Ethel is either a stepsister of Penny or a great-grandmother of Denise, or both.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Fred a cousin of Robert? Is Joe related to Bob? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: Every half-brother of Adam is not an ancestor of Jeff or not a classmate of Rodney. To be an ancestor of Jeff or a classmate of Rodney is necessary for being a close friend of Lance. In consequence, whoever is a close friend of Lance is not a half-brother of Adam.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First, being a daughter of Amie is sufficient for being a close friend of Barbara. Second, whoever is none of this: a workmate of Mari or ancestor of Jeanne, is a daughter of Amie. Therefore, everyone who is not both a workmate of Mari and an ancestor of Jeanne is however a close friend of Barbara.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Titanium oxide an ingredient of my washing power? Which chemicals does my perfume contain? It is really difficult to keep track of all chemicals one is regularly exposed to. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, whatever is none of this: an ingredient of Intense kohl duo or ingredient of ck one blush dome, is an ingredient of Compact Soleil. Second, being an ingredient of Compact Soleil is sufficient for being an ingredient of Father Frost Soap. We may conclude that whatever is not both an ingredient of Intense kohl duo and an ingredient of ck one blush dome is an ingredient of Father Frost Soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to see who is related to whom -- and in which ways. The following argument pertains to this question: First of all, every cousin of Simone is a close friend of Kenya or a cousin of Christine. Next, whoever is a close friend of Kenya is not a cousin of Simone. It follows that being a cousin of Simone is sufficient for being a cousin of Christine.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"It is not always easy to grasp who is consuming which products. The following argument pertains to this question: First, every owner of a Camay soap is neither a rare consumer of Nag Champa soap nor a frequent consumer of Nexxus shampoo. We may conclude that whoever is none of this: a rare consumer of Nag Champa soap or frequent consumer of Nexxus shampoo, is an owner of a Camay soap.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: To start with, being a fan of FC Salzburg is sufficient for not being an admirer of Arsenal FC. Now, no devotee of FC Zorya Luhansk is an admirer of Arsenal FC. Moreover, every ex-supporter of Osmanlıspor is a fan of FC Salzburg or a devotee of FC Zorya Luhansk. We may conclude: Whoever is an ex-supporter of Osmanlıspor is not an admirer of Arsenal FC.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: If someone is not an opponent to Ferencvárosi TC, then that person is not a member of Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC or not a backer of Wolfsberger AC. Whoever is not a critic of Villarreal CF is a member of Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC. Being a backer of Wolfsberger AC is necessary for not being a critic of Villarreal CF. All this entails that being an opponent to Ferencvárosi TC is necessary for not being a critic of Villarreal CF.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Some football fans admire various clubs, others love only a single team. But who is a fan of whom precisely? The following argument pertains to this question: Every fan of Paris Saint-Germain is an admirer of TSG 1899 Hoffenheim or an expert of FC Zorya Luhansk. Every member of FC Rostov is neither an admirer of TSG 1899 Hoffenheim nor an expert of FC Zorya Luhansk. So, necessarily, being a fan of Paris Saint-Germain is sufficient for not being a member of FC Rostov.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Is Siri a stepsister of Mary? Is Susan related to Kate? In large families, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of all one's relatives. The following argument seeks to clarify some such relations: First, whoever is a niece of Jessica is not a granddaughter of Marilyn. Second, whoever is a workmate of Debra is not a niece of Jessica. Hence, no workmate of Debra is a granddaughter of Marilyn.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["B"],"options":["A","B"]}
{"question":"Distinguish deductively valid arguments from formal fallacies.\n\nQ: \"Here comes a perfectly valid argument: First of all, no occasional purchaser of Burt's Bees soap who is an owner of a Aussie shampoo is a frequent consumer of Camay soap. So, necessarily, no frequent consumer of Camay soap is both an occasional purchaser of Burt's Bees soap and an owner of a Aussie shampoo.\"\n Is the argument, given the explicitly stated premises, deductively valid or invalid?\nAnswer Choices: (A) valid. (B) invalid.\nA: Among A through B, the answer is","label":["A"],"options":["A","B"]}
